[indianabones]

Or for that matter in any sport.

The number of times I have to read the word luck in thread after thread and post after post clearly written by idiots, is beyond a joke.

No one is "lucky" with the draw. The draws for these events are what they are. They are not rigged, they're done in front of everyone. If Nadal, Djokovic, Federer, Gulbis, Kukushkin or whoever are handed what appears on paper to be an easy or a difficult draw they are not "lucky". The draw is what it is.

You are not "lucky" to win a match or a tournament. The number of times I've read Wawrinka and Cilic were "lucky" is disgraceful. To win a grand slam you have to play a lot of matches and win many sets. No one "flukes" a match or a tournament because you have to win 2 or 3 sets, aty least 1 more set than your opponent.

No one is "lucky" because of the era they play in. Often this comment is the one you read the most on this site. It's enough to make you want to smash the your screen. Eras are not in a player's control. If X/Y or Z player or whoever has to play what you think are lower quality opponents, it is not "lucky" it is beating what is in front of them. Lendl beat whoever was in front of him for his slams, same with Becker, Sampras, Fed, Nadal, Djokovic etc etc etc. They did what they had to do and to use the word "lucky" is 1. stupid and 2. extremely disrespectful.

I'm getting sick of the idiots on this site who have nothing better to do than spew out brainless comments like "Luckovic/Luckerer in super weak era" or "Nadal lucky in weak clay era" etc etc.

The live commentary threads and even pre and post match threads are almost always full of these types of comments. Coming to this site should be interesting, instead you just have to facepalm and close the thread.

Ok rant over. Need to calm down and enjoy the entertainment in Rome's QF today.

 

[Deathless Mortal]

What if someone's shanks always somehow still land in?

 

[Litotes]

The "luck" phrase is ridiculously overused, I agree about that.

In the short run you can have luck, though. Deciding TB, 5-all, two netcords in a row, both land dead on the other side.

In the long run such things even themselves out.

 

[indianabones]

What if someone's shanks always somehow still land in?

That's your interpretation, the reality is they've not shanked it that bad have they?

A complete shank sents it half way up the stands, a semi shank might land on the playing surface and a mild shank may keep the rally going. But even then, there's no luck, the ball wasn't hit that badly.

 

[budala]

The "luck" phrase is ridiculously overused, I agree about that.

In the short run you can have luck, though. Deciding TB, 5-all, two netcords in a row, both land dead on the other side.

In the long run such things even themselves out.

true that. but to get to deciding TB, you actually have to know how to play tennis and cant rely on luck

 

[Cloren]

Luck is indeed overused here, it's a pathetic excuse that tards use when their favourite player lose or have had tough draws. However, we can't deny that there instances where luck is involved, like nets cord, some favourable circumstances when the line judge/umpire mistakes which benefit you, and so on.

Like Litotes said though, things even out eventually.

 

[Guigr]

Thanks. I understand that talking in a forum about tennis is complicated. So people troll to make it more entertaining hence luck, weak era, chocking, mugs... that makes MTF barely readable.

 

[Deathless Mortal]

That's your interpretation, the reality is they've not shanked it that bad have they?

A complete shank sents it half way up the stands, a semi shank might land on the playing surface and a mild shank may keep the rally going. But even then, there's no luck, the ball wasn't hit that badly.

The reality is, you shank the ball, you lose control of it. If it still goes in, it's luck.

 

[NID_BTFO]

Or for that matter in any sport.

The number of times I have to read the word luck in thread after thread and post after post clearly written by idiots, is beyond a joke.

No one is "lucky" with the draw. The draws for these events are what they are. They are not rigged, they're done in front of everyone. If Nadal, Djokovic, Federer, Gulbis, Kukushkin or whoever are handed what appears on paper to be an easy or a difficult draw they are not "lucky". The draw is what it is.

You are not "lucky" to win a match or a tournament. The number of times I've read Wawrinka and Cilic were "lucky" is disgraceful. To win a grand slam you have to play a lot of matches and win many sets. No one "flukes" a match or a tournament because you have to win 2 or 3 sets, aty least 1 more set than your opponent.

No one is "lucky" because of the era they play in. Often this comment is the one you read the most on this site. It's enough to make you want to smash the your screen. Eras are not in a player's control. If X/Y or Z player or whoever has to play what you think are lower quality opponents, it is not "lucky" it is beating what is in front of them. Lendl beat whoever was in front of him for his slams, same with Becker, Sampras, Fed, Nadal, Djokovic etc etc etc. They did what they had to do and to use the word "lucky" is 1. stupid and 2. extremely disrespectful.

I'm getting sick of the idiots on this site who have nothing better to do than spew out brainless comments like "Luckovic/Luckerer in super weak era" or "Nadal lucky in weak clay era" etc etc.

The live commentary threads and even pre and post match threads are almost always full of these types of comments. Coming to this site should be interesting, instead you just have to facepalm and close the thread.

Ok rant over. Need to calm down and enjoy the entertainment in Rome's QF today.

Spot on. I believe the "luck" thing originally started out as a joke. Then when more new people came here they didn't know it was supposed to be treated lightly, and unironically believed it was true. So they took the "luck" thing very seriously and began to parrot it to more users. It's basically summed up be "Any community that gets its laugh from pretending to be idiots will soon be flooded by actual idiots who think they are in good company".

 

[LightsoutLuz]

Seriously? What were the odds of Federer being born? Didn't he had to beat millions of challengers for his future mom's uterus? And that was just the beginning of his lucky life. Just like yours or mine, on different degrees of luck, obviously.

So yeh, just stop. You can't rule out "luck" of anything we do, let alone a children game that adults use to entertain themselves in-between working periods.

Now, you may be saying that it's disrespectful to players and tournaments to call them lucky or indicate the draws are rigged. On that I totally agree with you. If anything, theoretically, on the long term the 'luck' factor should benefit everyone.

 

[Orka_n]

What nonsense.

A shank that lands on the line is not lucky?
A dead net cord on a set point is not lucky?
A string breaking for opponent is not lucky?
A draw with only good matchups cannot be lucky?

Let me just say, probably all of tennis experts and more importantly PLAYERS on the ATP tour would disagree with you. Why do you think players apologize for a net cord? Because it was not intentional, and they're acknowledging their good fortune.

Yes luck is used too much in this place but fortune/good luck obviously exists in every sport.

 

[TBkeeper]

Lol at people not knowing what lucky is :lol: :haha:
Luck is everywhere , luck is in the things you can't control i.e. After you make a contact with the ball you give the ball certain parametres: Spin , Velocity , Angle ... but everything that happens after the contact is not in your control ... maybe a little gust of wind will appear AFTER you made the contact with the ball it's outside of your powers .... Let's not even talk the luck you must have to be amongst top 50 in the world. Maybe some kid in africa could've been the best player out there .. but dies a miserable death before he could even see a tennis court... Luck is everywhere don't BS around telling luck isn't there when the universe itself is a machine of probabilities... frikin tards

 

[Kyrgyros]

Absolutely disagree. Look at Madrid's final. Nadal was so lucky to not getting double bagelled, it's beyond belief. The same for Djokovic, so lucky that the main favorite withdrew from the tournament.

Now seriously, whilst I agree that there is no luck involved in winning tournaments, heck even 2 matches in the row, I don't think that about tight matches. I believe you can win a tight set with a lucky netcord, and when that set is decisive, you win the whole match even if you are even with your opponent the whole time. But this case happens in 0,001 cases and in the addition you have to get to those positions, so while it's unlucky to your opponent, he had every chance to win it sooner.

In general, the best way is ignore tards of course, they're sucking their heroes to obnoxious levels. Everyone else is disgusting, lucky or a fluke. But with posting around 600 posts, you should know that there is a certain ratio for good and tard threads. The tard ones starts usually with who is/has the best...

 

[Arsenalex]

Even argument against lucky net cords:
Which side depends on height/spin/power of shot you play

 

[MWW]

I agree with you when people say that a lower ranked player plays good tennis against the top 10, it is not purely 'luck'. They are playing how they should to compete. As you say with draws, they are random and there will be times it will be more 'favourable' for some than others and that will be how it is. I get that. Ferrer's Miami run and Paris 2012 run benefited from Djokovic (and Murray in the latter) being knocked out early on giving him the chance to win a Masters, however that will not happen most of the time and he still had to capitalise on the draw. There are some players who are generally bit favoured with the draws periodically, such as Berdych this year, avoiding Djokovic's half consistently, allowing him good strides in SFs.

Some outside circumstances will involve luck, apart from some let cords and calls etc. For instance Nadal was very lucky to win last year's Madrid. Nishikori was unlucky to have to his hip give in at that particular time and miss the rest of the clay season and a maiden Masters title because of that. One can also say Nadal was unlucky to have his back give in at the AO final as well, be it so Stan was outplaying him in the first set.

But in general it is silly to say people won etc. solely due to luck.

 

[Guybrush]

The "luck" phrase is ridiculously overused, I agree about that.

In the short run you can have luck, though. Deciding TB, 5-all, two netcords in a row, both land dead on the other side.

In the long run such things even themselves out.

That is not luck, that is result of HOW YOU MAKE THE LAST SHOT. Same in football, when someone says after a lost match "we were unlucky because we hit the post 4 times". The fact you hit them is because you missed your shots, I've you were precise the ball would get in every time.

In EVERY SPORT the players decide the winner (and referees sometimes), not "luck".

 

[TheBigFourFTW]

Shots fired at "Fate Ends Delusions"

 

[zjtennis]

Every sport has "luck" on it (i.e. variables that is beyond a player's control). That being said, I don't believe that matches are decided by "pure luck". That being said some matches are decided by some unintended strokes. It's all part of of the game.

 

[Shepherd]

Luck is for tards who mostly resort to excuses and use the concept of luck to disrespect players. Ironically they are incapable of that same approach the other way around. Just take a look who was quick to defend the luck factor, it's usually the ones with the biggest butthurt.

Luck in tennis exists just like in every other sport but it can not be proven or measured, nor can one determine whether a lucky occurence had a positive or negative impact on the future of the match, if you catch my drift. In the long run luck evens out therefore it is irrelevant in professional sports.

 

[JamieBlake]

My ass there isn't.